ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Propensity Score Overlap-Weighted Retrospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of postoperative recovery and complications: laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcomes Following Vaginal versus Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Vault Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Cystopexy raises the post-operative complication rate during laparoscopic hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the pelvic organ prolapse and vaginal prolapse among the global population.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) in Urogynecological Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- PROMIS pain intensity and interference after pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and durability.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Implementation of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy As the Default Technique and Lessons Learnt.Cureus · 2021Article
- Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for uterosacral ligament suspension: pilot study of 35 cases of severe pelvic organ prolapse.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Total laparoscopic multi-compartment native tissue repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery Revolution: The Next Frontier in Gynecologic Minimally Invasive Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo compare laparoscopic and vaginal approaches to uterosacral ligament vault suspension (USLS) by perioperative data, short-term complications, rates of successful concomitant adnexal surgery and procedural efficacy.
methodsRetrospective cohort of USLS procedures performed at the time of hysterectomy at a tertiary care center over a 3-year period. Patient demographics, surgical data, concomitant adnexal procedures and complications were abstracted from a surgical database and compared using parametric or non-parametric tests as appropriate. Validated questionnaires (POPDI-6, UDI-6, PROMIS) were used to collect information on recurrence and long-term complications. Patients were analyzed according to both intention-to-treat analysis based on the intended approach and the completed route of surgery to deal with intraoperative conversions.
resultsTwo hundred six patients met the criteria for inclusion; 152 underwent vaginal USLS (V-USLS) and 54 laparoscopic USLS (L-USLS). No statistically significant differences in mean case time, postoperative length of stay or perioperative infection were found. While no ureteric obstructions occurred in the L-USLS group, in the V-USLS group 14 (9%) obstructions occurred (p = 0.023). Postoperative urinary retention was higher with V-USLS (31% vs. 15%, p = 0.024). Rates of successfully completed adnexal surgery differed (56% vs. 98%, p < 0.001) in favor of L-USLS. Patient-reported symptomatic recurrence of prolapse was higher in the V-USLS group (41% vs. 24%, p = 0.046); despite this, re-treatment did not differ between the groups (0% vs. 7%, p = 0.113).
conclusionsPerioperative case time and complications did not differ between approaches. However, rates of completed adnexal surgery were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group, which could influence surgical decisions concerning approaches to prolapse surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.